gatopardo

Is it working for your LX100? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

Same findings here in VrayCam in 3DsMax. In real world images would always be somewhat different because we can't use the same lens in both bodies. So, the differences will be on the same level as the ones comparing a Canon 50mm 1.4 to the Nikon 50mm 1.4 one. It's each lens distortions and character making the difference rather than equivalence. But this is important because we may not be able to find a specific character of a full frame lens on a "equivalent" crop sensor lens.

@gatopardo Nope, sony f3. I gotta say I love everything but the bulk of the camera. The image even with just the internal recording is so far ahead of anything i've used before. I really liked the xc10 but the quality just drops off a cliff after iso 800, which with the slow lens happens in all but direct sunlight. I think canon tried to over sell the specs and cover up the ghosting which they fixed with a new version of the camera. Thats the reason I'll never buy anything new from canon again. I hope they are reading this thread.

1- For the same FOV and same lens aperture ( diferent lens on each sensor ) the crop sensor has more DOF than a full frame
2 -For the same focal lenght and same lens aperture (similar lens on each sensor ) the crop sensor has the same DOF but less FOV than a full frame. 

Micro Four Thirds is increasingly going up-market and into pro territory, but unfortunately new Panasonic and Olympus cameras are getting more and more expensive by the day.
Thankfully the G85 is a pro camera without a pro price - it represents a genuine advance over the Panasonic GH4 with cleaner low light performance and better automatic white balance.
Read the full review!

One could argue that the GX80 is wrong camera for this as it doesn't shoot log or 10bit, but the fact is it gets "close enough" that, for the majority of us (pro and amateur videographers), it offers "enough" headroom in post... significantly better quality and creative options than smartphones, inexpensive enough to be accessible. I'll be sharing some tests tomorrow concerning specular highlights and optimal contrast settings.

This is crazy : 
 
Almost global shutter

Done! It's great

You didin't
...

FF can look like APS-C if stopped down. Crop sensors can look like full frame if the DOF+FOV equivalent is possible. Its all about the DOF at a given effective focal length. FF starts to become impossible to emulate with combinations like a 24mm at f/2 or 35mm at f/2 or 2.8 on FF. Those are magic. 

So I got like the cheapest lens I could, and now it’s the only one I like. “Character” or crap, I love it. Just a non-ai 50mm with a $10 wide angle adapter. I have a telephoto adapter too, which definitely still has character, but not always my favorite. I like this even more than the 50 by itself. Didn’t know if there were just terrible cheap lenses anywhere that could be worth fiddling with. usually the budget lenses are still somewhat high for me. Kinda curious about fungus filled lenses, I’ve seen those do cool things
 
Ps, i know that those Dog Optiks are nice n Schidtty, and I appreciate the hell out of them, but maybe mostly interested from the cheapskate side of things, so /:

@mercer
The answer to the first question is: those are the most significant differences, as well as the fact that larger sensors generally have less noise.
The answer to the second question is: if the focal lengths and apertures are equivalent then the field of view and depth of field will match and the aps-c will not stand out. But the lens that will match the desired focal length and depth of field may not exist for aps-c or it may be more expensive than you'd like.
The take home message is: Use the laws of equivalence to decide if a given format's lens selection will meet your desires and budget for:
Angle of view - how wide or how telephoto you need to go Depth of field - how little or much of the image do you want to be in focus Light gathering ability - your preferences for depth of field in a given lighting situation with regard to the sensor's noise performance This will allow you to choose the best format for you, or to match one format to another within the limits of available hardware.

Of course you can. For MFT compared with full frame you need half the focal length and to open up two more stops. 

Same findings here in VrayCam in 3DsMax. In real world images would always be somewhat different because we can't use the same lens in both bodies. So, the differences will be on the same level as the ones comparing a Canon 50mm 1.4 to the Nikon 50mm 1.4 one. It's each lens distortions and character making the difference rather than equivalence. But this is important because we may not be able to find a specific character of a full frame lens on a "equivalent" crop sensor lens.

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion

The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso.
Resulting in for instance the properties below.

Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF
 






You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise.
Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info.
CinemaFile.zip

@Mattias Burling we seem to disagree, so let's explore this al little bit, because I think understanding equivalence is useful for anyone, especially when juggling camera's with different sized sensors.
You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size. The math concerns using crop factors for both focal length and f-stop to estimate the effects on framing and DOF. The physical f-stop obviously does not change. You show a screenshot from a Tony Northrup video that proves exactly these points! In the example using 100mm f5.6 on full frame yields the same framing and DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on MFT (2x crop). You can hear Northrup explain from 16:06...your example shows up right at 17:18 :-) Obviously there are limits as to what is currently possible. Getting the same framing and DOF as a fullframe 50mm F1.2 on a MFT camera would mean using a 25mm F0.6, which doesn't exist (yet!).

And Phillip Bloom said in the live stream that rolling shutter effect is the same as a6300...

You know, this might actually be an advantage for me. Shooting in 0° Wisconsin weather? No more overheating, plus a free hand warmer!

After all, I am pretty pleased with the DR of Classic Chrome. This still (grabbed from Resolve) shows a color corrected scene where I pushed the shadows and had a power window on the sky to bring down the highlights. Finally, I added some contrast and saturation to bring back some life. Please keep in mind, this is 8-bit 4.2.0.
As you see it was a cloudy day. This image is more colourful than as saw it with my eyes.

Ok, I admit, you can't get IBIS via firmware upgrade. But if I had bought a Sony A6300 I would be pretty upset now. Regarding the schedule of the product announcements of A6300 and A6500 I would feel ripped off.
But thinking about possibilities for a firmware update for the X-T2, I could imagine the following
internal F-Log histogram and or zebra in video mode Kodak 5219 film simulation (ok, maybe a Fujifilm motion picture film sim) continuous video AF improvements etc. (I am pretty sure, I forgot some other things which can be fixed through firmware evolution) If I think about the improvements I got for my X-E2, a lot of things are possible.

For Canon DSRLs, 1080P exists only on paper

With a speedbooster you are not far away from full frame looks either. 

For Canon DSRLs, 1080P exists only on paper

For Canon DSRLs, 1080P exists only on paper